The Third Amendment was created to protect your home from being quartered by soldiers without your consent. It has very rarely been a matter of debate or litigation, until now.
Federal district court Judge Andrew Gordon ruled that the police are exempt from the 3rd Amendment with a case out of Henderson, Nevada after a family had their home broken into and seized by local law enforcement who stated they needed the home to gain a “tactical advantage” against suspected criminals in a neighboring house.
Police actually forced their way into this family’s home, pepper-balled the father and his dog and then incarcerated the man for a day.
MOVE TO THE NEXT PAGE:
WOW, come on
I hope they got some good body armour their going to need it
Not without a warrant theyre not.
About time for me to take his case pro bono. Judges CAN NOT set aside the Cons$#%&!@*ution. And there is the charge of false imprisonment.
They look like a street gang in stolen uniforms… It won’t be an easy takeover.
In my opinion I do agree that the police are becoming too militaristic, but then again I can see that some of the calls for service require more of a tactical edge than they did in the past. I would like to hear the PD’s side about entering the house, and how they thought it was justified and lawful.
As to the law suit, the judge was absolutely correct in finding for the PD, remember, he can only rule on what is brought before him. The judge never said they could, only that the premise for the suit was not correct. There’s a big difference.
If you actually read your rights, it’s pretty clear it does not apply:
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “quartering soldiers” as: The act of a government in billeting or assigning soldiers to private houses, without the consent of the owners of such houses, and requiring such owners to supply them with board or lodging or both. A soldier is defined as: A military man; a private in the army.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There is nothing said in the article about a search being conducted for evidence of a crime. As to the seizure, it is a hunt by law enforcement officials for property or communications believed to be evidence of crime, and the act of taking possession of this property. It just does not fit.
Sadly, once again, the full story is not being reported either. Attorney Frank Cofer III, who represents the Mitchells even understood what the judge meant. He is quoted as saying: “While we are sorry that we will not be able to have a jury decide whether the Mitchell family’s Third Amendment rights were violated, the judge’s order was well-reasoned, and we respect the court’s decision. There are plenty of other constitutional rights at issue, and the case is proceeding on these claims.” Looks to me that Mr. Cofer is still solidly in the fight over this.
I see a better case for the Mitchells under the 14th Amendment and I sincerely doubt that it will be found alright for Law Enforcement to take over your home with out due process, But it’s only my opinion.
Not according to our current SCOTUS……they seem to look at it different…..
Yeah well I only listen to the cons$#%&!@*ution
Would love to know what douche wrote this article.
If you are trying to gain a tactical advantage, don’t break in my house!!
My gunshots will give away your position.